The Competent Authority's failure to ensure service of notice and adherence to natural justice principles invalidates the ex parte decision regarding Unilateral Deemed Conveyance.

JUDGMENT :

N. J. Jamadar, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, heard finally.

2. By this Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner takes exception to an order dated 14^th June 2022, passed by the District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Thane and the Competent Authority, thereby granting Unilateral Deemed Conveyance Certificate in respect of the premises admeasuring 5436.80 sq mtrs (“the subject premises”) out of the total area of 2 Hectors 32 Ares and 71 Points (23,271.00 sq mtrs) (“the larger property”) situated at Shastri Nagar, Village Majiwade, Thane (West), under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 (“the MOFA, 1963”).

3. Though the Petition arises out of an order passed by the Competent Authority in exercise of its limited jurisdiction under Section 11 of the MOFA, 1963, yet, the facts of the case are required to be noted in a little detail as there are multiple facets to the litigation with various proceedings before the Civil Courts, Revenue Authorities and the Authorities under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 and the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (“the Slum Act”).

4. Late Manekji Modi, the father of the Petitioner, claimed to have acquired the larger property from one Mr. Gulvantram in the year 1948. His name was mutated to the Record of Rights of the larger property. After his demise the names of Mrs. Nargis Manekji Modi, the mother of the Petitioner, and Dina Manekji Modi, the Petitioner’s sister, and the Petitioner, were mutated to the Record of Rights of the larger property vide Mutation Entry No. 1205. The Petitioner now claims to be the sole surviving heir of late Manekji Modi.

5. Mangibai Govind Varatha and Raghunath Govind Varatha, the deceased Respondent Nos. 4 and 5, claimed to be the tenants of a plot of land admeasuring 6500 sq yards out of the land bearing Survey No. 231, the larger property.

6. The deceased Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 had purportedly executed a registered Lease Deed dated 17^th December, 1981 of the subject premises for a term of 98 years, commencing from 1^st January 1982, in favour of M/s Shreeram Construction Company through late Amrutlal Lalji Patel. On the strength of the said Lease Deed the name of M/s Shreeram Construction Company came to be recorded in the other rights column of the larger property vide Mutation Entry No. 1889.

7. A series of the proceedings before the Revenue Authorities ensued. In an Application preferred by the Petitioner, the Sub Divisional Officer (“SDO”), Thane by an order dated 25^th August 2007 cancelled the Mutation Entry No. 1889 and ordered the deletion of the name of Respondent No. 6 from the Record of Rights.

8. In the Second Appeal, the Additional Collector, Thane, by an order dated 3^rd January 2017, set aside the order passed by the SDO and restored the name of the Respondent No.6 to the Record of Rights.

9. A Revision Application was preferred before the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division. By an order dated 20^th August 2019, the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division, allowed the Revision Application and set aside the Additional Collector’s order and, resultantly, the name of Respondent No. 6 came to be deleted from the other rights column.

10. A further Revision before the State Government is sub judice.

11. In the meanwhile the Respondent No. 6 constructed building Nos. A to K, consisting of more than 150 tenements over the subject premises. The Respondent No. 6 had all